June 30, 2011

I'm linking so you can get started talking about it in the comments here and over there. I haven't read the entire thing, but it looks as though she only apologizes for not linking to me, which wasn't the real problem. The real problem — which I describe here — was her unsubstantiated accusations. Does she now provide the evidence that was lacking before? I don't see how she can, because I know what she wrote about me was wrong, but I will read it now, and I hope you do too.

ADDED: First, let's look at the positive. Emily Mills has admitted that we don't know what really happened that day in the Supreme Court. I think that originally she, like Bill Wineke, thought she could be part of a media noise machine that could ruin Prosser. But now, it seems, she's let go of the belief that she can simply be hardcore anti-Prosser. That's not a comfortable place anymore. Good. I've pulled the Madison cocoon open. I'm happy about that. Time to grow up and live in the wider world.

Now, the negative. Mills strains to read between the lines of things I've written and to imagine things I must be thinking:

What I'm calling out, then, is what I perceived to be an all-too quick jump to the "it was probably Bradley's/Abrahamson's/liberals fault" line of argument existent in Ann's and other's [sic] musings on the matter.

That quote isn't a quote from me. It's Mills's own expression of her perceptions when she read my mind. I thought Mills was going to substantiate her accusations with words that I wrote, not reports of her feelings when she read what I wrote.

It's important, when you're reading and you get a feeling to stop and think: What made me feel like that? It can be very enlightening! Go back over the precise words that set you off. There may be an interesting discrepancy between those words and your feelings. Pay attention to your own mind. Confront the ways in which other people's minds are genuinely different from yours.

To some extent, it's good to imagine that another person's thoughts resemble yours. Emily Mills wants the liberal side to win, so when she's reading something I wrote that doesn't help, she presumes I'm on the other side. She knows how she embodies her thoughts cagily into words, and she imagines that I'm doing the same kind of thing. But other people deserve to be recognized as separate and different. One of the reasons to read is to get the feeling of how another person thinks. Don't close yourself off to that. You'll be a better reader, and, I would argue, a better person, because you will be accepting and confronting the author's humanity and individuality.

207 comments:

I read it. I don't know what others will think, but I found it wanting in many areas. That said, I've kinda decided that Emily Mills is too far out of her weight class to really engage. Kinda hoping that she was a legit, albeit totally misguided, journo who would own her own errors and missteps, but that's not what I see. I see a kid who passed in a crap exam, then begged for extra-credit to make up for it, and then screwed that up too.

She complains that you are taking sides (after admitting she too has taken sides, even though no one should take sides) and then shows a couple of if this/then that statements that don't take sides. But you used more words on one of your if statements, so obviously you believe that one.

I will try reading Mills' piece through again. The first time all I heard her say was that 1) Ann Althouse is Troublesome, and 2) Ann Althouse is overly sensitive. So Mills sounded like a woman stereotyping another woman. That is a man's job, Emily.

Starts out like she might just own it and move on...but, then there she goes again and firmly puts Ann on a "side", even if Ann's own words dont't put her there.

The rest is just tail chasing, hoping you get lost and give up....sigh, which I did.

I would hope she would come to see the traffic to her site as the goal...and not some horrible viral response she is trying to avoid by posting her blogs and opinions on the side of her barn...only to find mean people discussing it on the internet.

Emily's post is setting the stage once more...she says that we must see 1)either Prosser attacked Bradley and wrapped his fingers around her throat to strangle her, or 2) Bradley attacked Prosser and Prosser wrapped his fingers around her throat to strangler her. She is willing to await the answer. That takes away human intelligence which easily figures out that Prosser shoved away the head/neck unit of Bradley to keep her away...no fingers strangling a woman's neck anywhere except in Mill's Propaganda Piece.

AllenS said..."I wasn't able to post a comment on Emily's awesome blog"

That Isthmus setup is ridiculous. Whoever decided that you needed to swear over your first-born in order to post a comment needs a quick Internet 101 class. Unless they never really intended to have anyone outside their incestuous circle to post, and would instead pretend that their echo chamber represents the view of the "'Net".

And, she's a lousy card player to boot. She should substitute 3-Card Monty. Or 3 walnut half shells.

And, as I said, too bad she can't get a snapshot of abrhamason at the hairdresser's. Or Bradley painting signs, and hanging them at the courthouse. Providing arrows to the "etiquette classroom." Where they're setting a trap to grill Prosser.

Her defense fails on two counts: 1) all she comes up with are things like, Althouse used more words to describe one side being at fault than the number she used to condemn Prosser if he initiated hostilities. She is either deluding herself or flailing about trying to justify her earlier unfounded accusations.

2)Emily is all, we do not know the whole story, now. But in her original post, was rather obviously biased against Prosser in ways which are rather clear-cut: "It also fueled the fires of victim blaming amongst Prosser supporters." and "What it comes down to is this: We already have documentation of Prosser's temper, especially in regards to his treatment of his fellow (female) Justices."

Mills: "It's almost as if she believes one thing more than another -- as though Ann has already reached a conclusion about what actually happened that day in Bradley's chambers."

Think about this sentence. Saying "it's almost as if she believes" means "she doesn't believe." She bases this belief on the length of the sentence saying that Bradley ought to resign if she is lying. First, that shouldn't be arguable. Second, she was challenging the original writer to be honest about it. Third, try saying that in fewer words. But really, she is going by word count alone. Nothing Ann wrote leads to her conclusion.

Ms. Mills is a terrible writer. Poor writing is usually a sign of disjointed or confused thinking.

There's quite a bit more weight given to the second part of the paragraph. It's almost as if she believes one thing more than another -- as though Ann has already reached a conclusion about what actually happened that day in Bradley's chambers.

That after she mentioned Judge Bradley's initial public complaint with this: What I do know is that Justice Bradley issued an official statement alleging that Justice Prosser "put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold." without further commentary but then mentioned Judge Prosser's (thru his secretary) public comment I also know that Prosser's own press releasesimply noted that "the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false." followed by this: That could mean that Prosser did grab Bradley by the neck -- either because, as one side claims, Prosser was throwing a tantrum, or because, as another side claims, Bradley came at Prosser with fists raised and he was merely defending himself by putting his hands on her neck.

The implication is that Bradley's claim should be taken at face value but Prosser statement must be analysed and judged.

And of course that all negates this: I don't know what happened in Bradley's chambers on June 13. No one but the people who were actually present at that time know exactly what occurred. I will wait, then, for a full and thorough investigation of the incident to come to some clearer conclusion.

More: I strongly suspect that you would, in fact, support Prosser's removal from the bench if Bradley's version of events turned out to be absolutely true.

I think the Professor has said that several times, so it requires no "suspicion" on Ms. Mills part.

What I'm calling out, then, is what I perceived to be an all-too quick jump to the "it was probably Bradley's/Abrahamson's/liberals fault" line of argument existent in Ann's and other's musings on the matter.

What's missing is the intellectual curiosity to ask: "If the only witnesses are Supreme Court justices and the accusation is of a criminal act, why were there no charges filed?"

And would they be so quick to disbelieve Bradley's account if she weren't a woman?

Oh no she dinnit!!

The rest was more stuff

I thought her tone started out well but then too much said and of course, there are her followers who need to affirmed.

But in the long run, it is as I believe Fred said a Tempest in a Tea Pot

For Chrissake professor..don't you realize that for the likes of this woman this is a war. And, as the great Winston Churchill said, "The first casualty of war is truth." There is no Geneva Convention protocol in this war..it's the scorched earth campaign from the Clinton years. I thought you were supposed to be smart..well it's time to get street smart!

Fact: Emily Mills has 0 professional credentials. Fact: Emily Mills has never been a full time staff member of a professional organization. Fact: Emily Mills is in a band that pontificates about politics.

Emil Mills is a narcissist. Emily Mills throws parties at bars and collects money for left wing causes. She thinks this lends herself credibility or something. She's a SWPL cause junkie with a keyboard, nothing more. She's trying to ride off of controversy on this one. It's her usual shtick.

Doesn't going to great lengths pretty much cover terrible lengths? And no, that is not a cutesy point. The inflation of language is no different than the inflation of currency, inflation devalues both.

Matt, try to think outside of the very narrow box you seem to be confined in. Is Althouse a "conservative blog" because the proprietor is an Obama-voting public employee? Or maybe because she accuses those of us who find the notion of gay marriage to be ridiculous of being "homophobes"?

Or just maybe is it the slight variation from the Union line that makes her conservative? I only ask because I know "conservative" is a perjorative in much of Wisconsin. This conservative is curious.

I don't like the abrupt transition from open letter to rebuttal. If you start a post with "Dear Ann Althouse" and continue on for several paragraphs in second person, then suddenly switch to putting Althouse in the third person, it's either sloppy writing or evidence of psychosis--or both.

Try oscillating between second and third person in a normal conversation and see how long it takes before the other person smacks you with a pair of white linen gloves.

Matt said..."Ann pretends she doesn't want the conservative side to win."

You are wrong, Matt. What she wants is for the freely elected majority to win. If the Republicans were using the same tactics as the Democrats are now - trying to overturn free fair democratic elections and legislation - I can assure you, Ann Althouse would be taking those Republicans to task in exactly the same way.

"How stupid/evil was Bill Leuders' attack on Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser?" may arguably be a leading question, but it isn't really a great example of one. A better example would be: "Isn't it true that Bill Leuder is stupid and/or evil?" And that second question would be objectionable on direct but not at all objectionable on cross-examination.

The first question also is not per se objectionable because it is leading - again, that objection depends on the context. So if it was objectionable in a general sense, it would need to be for some other reason. It assumes facts not in evidence, perhaps, or it calls for a conclusion. Not sure it's a great example for either of those objections, either.

Why is it that people who are arguing with lawyers always have to make stupid jokes about the rules of evidence?

1. They project emotion and their own motives onto everyone else. Instead of reading the words that Althouse wrote, she wants to interpret the words to have the meaning that SHE wants to believe.

2. They seem to be incapable of divorcing the blog host or hostess from the commentors. As we all know there is no way to control the commenters on your blog. Well, actually there is a way and that is censorship which Althouse, thankfully does not do.

That was your typical olympic level back-peddling to put up a straw man that if you think Prosser really did the chocking that you should agree that he should be removed, while not presenting a single iota of evidence that any thing like that occurred, much less has been substantiated by anyone. Leftards love to jump to conclusions whenever they can so they can hedge their bets to point their fingers and blame anyone who gets it their way of being biased. To call them cynical assholes would be redundant.

And I think the Alice in Wonderland woodcarvings would be more appropriate for this post. You thought you were strolling through the Forest of Facts but then fell down a rabbit-hole and somehow ended up in Emily Mills's head, where how one 'feels' about a topic is interchangeable with the facts of the topic.

'Suppose we change the subject,' the March Hare interrupted, yawning. 'I'm getting tired of this.'

Matt, try to think outside of the very narrow box you seem to be confined in. Is Althouse a "conservative blog" because the proprietor is an Obama-voting public employee? Or maybe because she accuses those of us who find the notion of gay marriage to be ridiculous of being "homophobes"?

Think you're wrong on that last one. I can't recall Ann ever calling anyone who disagrees with her on same sex marriage homophobic. She's very passionate in her defense, but she keeps it specific to the issues.

Fact: Emily Mills has 0 professional credentials. Fact: Emily Mills has never been a full time staff member of a professional organization. Fact: Emily Mills is in a band that pontificates about politics.

She throws parties at bars in Madison and collects money for left wing causes. She thinks this lends herself credibility or something. She's a left wing cause junkie with a keyboard, nothing more. She's trying to ride off of controversy on this one. It's her usual shtick.

What is important to understand about Emily Mills, I've met her, is that she sees herself as an absolutely correct liberal socialist crusader. What she believes trumps all else, nothing else matters. It doesn't matter what the facts are. If the facts don't fit into the frame, context, talking points, and propaganda of her crusade against (she doesn't stand for much, she's mostly against) smaller government, they don't matter. They are simply something else to be against. After reading enough of her material you'll sense that she has a classic narcissist personality. It's all about her.

She has let her personal politics stand in the way of objectively analyzing and writing about the matters between Justices Bradley and Prosser.

Her wish for things to be as she describes them is not unusual for progressives, who tend to view diversity as being people of all races and genders believing exactly the same things, intolerant of others' opinions.

She is, in that regard, not yet a fully-formed adult capable of reasoning and objectivity. That's fine with the small audience of sycophants who read her writings, but it constrains her from entering the larger world of adults who are capable of independent thinking and writing.

I attended the University of Wisconsin in the late 60s-early 70s. I was at that time a protesting, hard core lefty; a hater of law and order, a despiser of corporations, Republicans, people who wore suits and anyone over age 30.

It changed one night when I saw the senselessness of that set of beliefs.

The bombing of Sterling Hall showed me that the true endgame of progressivist politics - what the dead enders really sought - was destruction of the strictures of Western society, human lives lost in the process were merely collateral damage.

Demonization is at the beginning of the progressive road map; destruction is at its end. I do hope that Emily Mills will one day understand that.

The end result of Emily's attack on the Professor is quite representative of liberal attacks on non-liberals generally. The Professor's point is now so obviously correct liberals are claiming it as their own. Yet somehow they still conclude it proves she's partisan / stupid / evil.

edutcher, I think I'm right. I believe she habitually characterizes any opposition to gay marriage as "homophobia", including when she interacts with the commenters. I don't usually remember being offended if I wasn't really offended, and I remember her offending me more than once when the topic comes up. Easier for her to tell us, but if that's not her bag, I'll look up examples to ascertain whether I'm right or wrong. I believe that her usual tack is to call various Legislation "homophobic", thus forcing it's supporters to adopt the mantle of a "homophobe" in order to support it.It's the same cheap ruse used with "racism" all the time. If she has masterfully crafted her posts to avoid just that impression, then I apoplogize in advance.

Emily Pissed:"The biggest issue should be that any kind of violence at all is happening among our Supreme Court justices. Whether we're talking about Prosser's calling Chief Justice Abrahamson a "bitch ..."

Sorry Emily. Calling a woman a bitch is not violence.

A woman BEING a bitch is open to being CALLED a bitch and that is not violent. It's calling the woman out on her bitchiness.

Women do that all the time to other women and that is never perceived as being "violence."

If you don't want to be called a bitch, then don't ACT like a bitch. If you do ACT like a bitch, it is proper in society for others to CALL you a bitch.

Michael Haz said........."I have a daughter who is Emily's age, or close to it. I recognized in Meade's comment the kind of firm but gentle language a father uses to guide a young-adult daughter away from a bad idea."

"Well Stanley...he is from Kenya...how do you he will want to stay with you and the baby"

Michael Haz said........."I have a daughter who is Emily's age, or close to it. I recognized in Meade's comment the kind of firm but gentle language a father uses to guide a young-adult daughter away from a bad idea."

"Oh you are going to share a tent with Levi when you go on that outing. I don't think that's such a good idea Bristol."

Michael Haz said........."I have a daughter who is Emily's age, or close to it. I recognized in Meade's comment the kind of firm but gentle language a father uses to guide a young-adult daughter away from a bad idea."

"I know your job with Hillary is very important Hummus, but Anthony seems to spend a lot of time shut in his room with his computer. Do you think that's a good idea?"

Meade beat me to it. I took it as meaning the Republicans had already "won", but there have been attempts at almost every turn to make that result meaningless.

@Scott, here is one of the currently most popular articles in Isthmus. As you can see, the next step being proposed by the anti-democracy "Democrats" is a general strike.

Fine. I predict, if they actually strike, they will finally lose all the garage mahals in the state - Democrats who, in the end, don't want revolution, chaos, or socialism because, in the end, what they want is what is best for their children and for the state of Wisconsin.

I cannot believe that so many here are foolish enough to defend a man such as Prosser for what he did to this poor woman. He obviously grabbed here around the neck to attack her-I would know, I spent several months in 2006 demonstrating on TV how rich, wicked males grab innocent women around the neck.

Something obviously happened to that woman.

I hope Emily keeps up the good work and is on the right side. I like to think she was on my side.

Feh. The ancient bible wasn't written in English. So "great and terrible" is not the expression heard in the desert 4,000 years ago. Probably? Just a thunder clap. Followed by lightening. Before the speed of light, and the speed of sound were discovered.

However, the phrase "It was a dark and stormy night" ... certainly belongs to the "test" if you've got a winning sentence there. Or not.

Emily Mills is a lucky fool.

She wrote about you, Ann. And, you decided to give her a forum. Bigger than her soap box.

I still say Shirley Abrhamson is shell shocked. While there's no hope at all for Bradley. Whose too dumb to understand Prosser won.

For all we know all three dames ... so I'm including kloppenhoppen ... have unusually big feet for a woman. And, that's what helps them to keep on standing up. When they've been walloped so silly ... they should have all fallen down.

Ah, the good news is that this story keeps pulling at the site meter. Keeps comments coming. And, Prosser? If he's not dancing now, he needs to pick up some lessons from Arthur Murray.

Can't wait till Emily Mills figures out she's gotta find a way into the broom closet ... where Abrahamson is probably hiding out. Now that Bradley's office is a dead giveaway.

I think Abrahamson shot off her own dialing finger ... Just like Anthony Weiner did. It's a good thing when the cell phone backfires.

"It's important, when you're reading and you get a feeling to stop and think: What made me feel like that? It can be very enlightening!"

Welcome to the Internet. Nearly every flame war begins with exactly this problem. And its why the kind of short-form banter in comments is usually useless unless the people doing the discussions have at least some common first principles.

What was it that Karl Popper said? It's impossible to speak in such a way that you can't be misunderstood? Something like that. Multiply it by an order of magnitude, and that's what arguing on the Internet is like.

I thought about my flip comment above and deleted it as it is not in the spirit of what Althouse was/is seeking to do in challenging Emily.

Emily proves by her made up scare quotes and cutesy s-s-s-schtick that still doesn't understand Althouse's point or intent.

I suspect Emily's too young to have read the point-by-point rebuttals to Robert Fisk's propaganda tracts in the early aughts to understand the form, and obviously hasn't taken a debate class, thus she has no clue how to respond to the gentle professorial fisking given by Althouse other than as a personal attack.

It's interesting, too, that Lueders says that, at the time they were interviewing witnesses of the original incident, no one said anything about Bradley charging Prosser.

A few of us were talking about this in the earlier post, but if Lueders did interview any witnesses to the incident, none of them said anything about anything. Lueders has already admitted, in his Channel 3 interview, that the three anonymous sources he cited in his article were not witnesses; all they told him was that someone had accused Prosser.

"She wrote about you, Ann. And, you decided to give her a forum. Bigger than her soap box."

I'm thinking this was Mill's game. Ride off of Althouse's name. Even better for Mill's... In Madison, the Althouse name is pure EVIL. Althouse is the evil con professor who needs a good factual lecture from the grander than life Emily Mills.

Fine. I predict, if they actually strike, they will finally lose all the garage mahals in the state - Democrats who, in the end, don't want revolution, chaos, or socialism because, in the end, what they want is what is best for their children and for the state of Wisconsin.

I hope you're right, Meade. But the rhetoric -- "It's not over 'til we win" and "By any means necessary" -- makes me wonder.

Here is a prime example of how Emily's writing (or possibly thinking) is unclear:

I strongly suspect that you would, in fact, support Prosser's removal from the bench if Bradley's version of events turned out to be absolutely true. There is nothing in me that wishes to believe that you would be OK with one justice ever laying a hand in anger on another. And I should state for the record that if Bradley also even attempted to lay a hand on Prosser in anger then she, too, should be removed. I absolutely support that.

Why the "also even" and "too"? Does she mean 1. Prosser should definitely go but also maybe Bradley too. or 2. It is possible that only Bradley is to blame and if so, only she should be removed? If she means the second thing then her writing is terrible, if she means the first, then her thinking is shoddy. Possibly her thoughts are unclear and this lead to the vague phrasing.

@Peter That's why I prefaced that with "I think." I don't know. I try to be clear about when I am speculating.

It is my view that Lueders, Wineke, Mills (and probably others whom I'm not bothering to read) were getting their version of the story out there along with a strong message that any other version would get you accused of being for violence against women, and they were hoping that would work.

Just hope poor Emily grows up in an adult someday, and can reason like this adult:

Common sense tells me that Bradley and Abrahamson are both hysterical bitches. And by bitches, I don't mean female dogs, but rather female persons who happen to be mean, nasty, whiny, disagreeable and obnoxious. It is just easier to say "total bitches."

Still, until Abrahamson went to Loo-der. And, Bradley kept making gagging sounds ... We wouldn't have heard about Prosser prowling the Supreme Court's hallways. Looking for his chief. With 3 other justices in tow. It seems they all had an agreement on publishing a decision, that flew down some memory hole. Was the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court supposed to ignore this?

If I had to guess, all around this country ... in 50 states ... sit jurists who damn well hate it when a door flies open ... and what belongs to them, in terms of what they say and hear, just DOESN'T stay a secret inside their club house!

What Abrahamson did is like sending out a birth announcement by taking a picture of her vagina ... and saying "guess what this produced?" As if you can't have a birth without a picture showing the birth canal in order to confirm what took place. My mother would have preferred to die of embarrassment.

Tell me, is there a process where there is really a judicial review going on, now? Are they looking at Abrahamson's broken promises?

The guy that's waiting in the wings to give Justice Prosser a "course on etiquette," can go home now.

"It is my view that Lueders, Wineke, Mills (and probably others whom I'm not bothering to read) were getting their version of the story out there along with a strong message that any other version would get you accused of being for violence against women."

This is precisely what they're doing.

They're conspiring to try to frame Judge Prosser for "violence." Notice Mills characterizing "calling a woman a bitch" as "violence."

Also, remember that their original goal was to force Judge Prosser against his will into "anger management" mental health.

They're using time-honored and very effective means of de-legitimizing and castrating men that they've learned in our nation's colleges and universities.

If a woman charges you in anger, and you defend yourself ... why, you need "anger management in the workplace" training.

The fact that they've failed to "get" Judge Prosser will only embolden them, in my view.

Sooner or later, he'll be accused of a rape (remember the Duke 88?) or some other sexual assault for which the only evidence will be "his word against her word."

And they'll fall back on his "history" of "abusing" women by using the "violence" of calling a woman a bitch against him to "prove" that he must be guilty of the sex crime.

They're after conservatives ... and they'll stop at nothing - including false charges.

Lets see--its coming up on a long weekend where not many people are paying attention other than to their grills and libations--I would not be surprised to get a news release that says something to the effect that "investigation shows there are no bases for any further action."

This whole kerfluffle will end up as a dead end and forever be enshrined in the he said she said hall of fame.

I consider the choking incident to be a case of auto-erotic asphyxiation. Kind of a variant of suicide by cop......I also thought that the great and terrible quote was a reference to the Wizard of Oz and not the Old Testament. Emily's point was that she had thrown back the curtain and revealed Althouse as a crock. What I don't know was whether Althouse chose to deliberately ignore the insult and modestly claim a lesser status than Jehovah while maintaining her position as one of His prophets. It gets pretty complicated when women argue.

4 justices interviewed. Only one grabs the mic. I bet you could have guessed who without looking at the clip.

This just proves that the other three are in the back pocket of evil Fox News, while upstanding Prosser is free from their baleful influence.

In Garage land, if Prosser was a liberal Democrat, he would be winning kudos for dissing Fox. Or if Prosser had a friendly interview with Fox, proof that Fox and the Republicans are working hand-in-hand.

We heard so many brave and heroic stories today of Walker and WIGOP risking their lives to save lives at the Webster St fire on the square. Oh wait, that wasn't them, it that was the same pubic workers he just plowed in the ass that spent 8 hours putting it out.

Sometimes when I set out to "refutiate" something someone has written, I find that working through my response makes me reconsider what was actually said. Often in those cases, I end up not finding it necessary to respond at all. So I think Ann offers some excellent advice here.

And to Ms. Mills: Having frequented the Althouse blog through the years, I judge that Ann would have approached this SC debacle in the same manner had Prosser been the progressive and Bradley the conservative. If she's anti- or pro- either one of them, I couldn't tell you who or why.

Althouse concerns herself with the behavior of the players (including, and perhaps especially, the media) and tries to discern the reasons for that behavior. She may judge whether the behavior is appropriate (for instance, she believes elections have consequences and journalists should have standards), but she doesn't pass judgement on ideological bent.

Okay, there are 161 posts here and a lot of original sourced material to read through.

But in my not very well informed opinion...could Emily Mills be a typical liberal in a left wing city and not used to having to experiencing intellectual diversity? She thinks she can throw out a few lines and the mindless Madwacistanians will eat it up?

Well, I actually looked at the link garage provided. None of the justices commented. Prosser turned his back on the interview. Where he got cornered in the elevator. Obviously, he didn't take a swing at the news person. Though, to me, that looked like a very tempting opportunity.

Prosser keeps his legal dignity.

Abrahamson tries a deflection to "it's under investigation." But, of course, Fox6 didn't mention it was Prosser who filed his charge with the Judicial branch.

And, it's Abrahamson who deftly deflected answering any questions.

Bradley needs a re-write script.

Where I'd begin by saying (if I were in her shoes), that she and Arbrahamson were together, alone ... sitting and eating homemade cookies ... when she thought a breeze knocked her office door open.

"Then, she demurely rose."

She cleared her throat to say something like "hi ho is anyone there?" When she choked on some cookie dust.

You know, I've never seen such an array of incompetents sitting on a Supreme Court ... ever ... in American history ... quite like this.

To their credit ... none of them fell down drunk. (So we know we weren't in Congress.)

The criminal investigation in Dane County, that Abrahamson said was in progess ... is probably just being swept under the rug. That's all.

I'm sure all the justices ... including the crook ... just want this whole subject to go away.

Saith Garage: "We heard so many brave and heroic stories today of Walker and WIGOP risking their lives to save lives at the Webster St fire on the square. Oh wait, that wasn't them, it that was the same pubic workers he just plowed in the ass that spent 8 hours putting it out."

The fire and police were exempted, remember? And they were using union water, so there's that.

I attended the University of Wisconsin in the late 60s-early 70s. I was at that time a protesting, hard core lefty; a hater of law and order, a despiser of corporations, Republicans, people who wore suits and anyone over age 30.

Can you articulate why you held those beliefs and positions? Merely saying you did these things lends me to wonder why you did these things.

@Methadras - You asked me: "Can you articulate why you held those beliefs and positions? Merely saying you did these things lends me to wonder why you did these things"

An excellent question, thanks.

I was taught in high school how to think critically and lost (or shelved) that skill while attending the U of WI probably because critical thinking was neither encouraged or welcomed.

The people I liked, the people I hung around with, all had the same liberal-progressive-anarchist mindset. I didn't have to think about it, just accept it.

The reward for acceptance of the groupthink was more friends, better weed, some hash, readily available no-strings-attached sex, and a life free of hassles. I needed to neither explain nor apologize for anything.

40,000 other students and faculty hated The Man, I hated The Man. A grades in liberal arts classes were easy easy. Just write what the TA said about anything, and add a quote from a NYT article.

Change began when one professor, the late Jim Graskaamp (God rest his wonderful soul) called me into his office and asked me to explain something I had said in class. And then to explain the explanation, and further explain that. He taught me how to think for myself, to examine everything and everyone objectively and not rely on the intellectual weakness that comes with accepting groupthink.

"We heard so many brave and heroic stories today of Walker and WIGOP risking their lives to save lives at the Webster St fire on the square. Oh wait, that wasn't them, it that was the same pubic workers he just plowed in the ass that spent 8 hours putting it out."

Why is it that liberals and public workers seem to think that their jobs are the only important ones out there?

If someone isn't happy with their job, they go elsewhere like in the private sector. If a firefighter or a cop doesn't want to risk their life anymore, there are many other good jobs out there.

Firefighters are important, teachers important...we get it.

I teach as a TA at UW. I never whined to my students about having to make what in all reality was a negligible sacrifice under the budget provisions.

Did I make up martyr-esque bullshit about how my job was the most important, or how I did this for the kids? No. I do my job because I love it, and because it will prepare to be a professor, my ultimate goal.

These kids' parents pay shitloads of money for their kids to go to UW, which in part has to do with flipping the bill for an expensive benefits package for me.

So why should I go off, cancel classes or have teach outs, and take advantage of my students ignorance on the budget issue by turning them into crusaders for something that costs both their parents and taxpayers more money?

This seems like simple logic with that many high profile witnesses. If Bradley's account was true, what are the odds that charges would not already have been filed? On the other hand, if Prosser's account is true wouldn't you expect a debate exactly like the one we are seeing? Forgive me if I'm leaning towards the Fists of Fury version. Because you know, it makes more sense.

I watched the video link of garage. Prosser doesn't look like the Boston Strangler; but if he wished to create the image of a temperate man who is slow to anger, then he failed. I'm sure that the narrative is muddled and complicated, but Prosser has some share of blame for the fracas.......OK, it was an ambush interview, but he should have handled it better. It wasn't a bean ball. It was an inside curve. If you wish to play in the majors, you should be able to handle that pitch. In the battle for public opinion, that interview did him no good.

Bradley and Abrahamson were sitting around talking about what jerks the other justices are when Prosser and crew showed up. Prosser thought he had a deal for the opinions to be released the next day.

Abrahamson said, LULZ! I might get around to that in a month or so. Prosser told her she was incompetent. Bradley freaked out and came at Prosser, who pushed her out of his space. Roggensack pulled her away. She cried, "Help, help! I'm being strangled!"

The others said no.

Abrahamson was pissed off that she was called on her passive-aggressive crap. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism was looking for yet another alternate means of shaking up the Supremes and villifying Walker. Lueders writes his article, and like everything else these conniving idiots have done, it blows up in their faces.

"One justice, apparently one of Prosser's conservative colleagues, told a reporter Bradley ordered Prosser out of her office because he “was attacking the chief justice.” Before leaving, the witness said, Prosser “put his hands around her neck in what she (Bradley) described as a chokehold.” It was “in no way playful.'"

Yes, women do have pissing contests. The winner is judged on volume, not distance. Or sometimes accuracy, making this one sport where women beat men every time.

Ann, Emily is right. You do spend more words on the anti-Bradley case than on the anti-Prosser case. Why should a preponderance of admissible evidence be allowed to override a fair and equal hearing of both sides?

That would be like awarding Florida's electors to a candidate who won a preponderance of actual votes.

Yes, women do have pissing contests. The winner is judged on volume, not distance. Or sometimes accuracy, making this one sport where women beat men every time.

That's only because they have to stand right over the thing. In the events where you have to go over an obstacle into the target, men win every time. Judging by her picture, it looks like Emily might have a shot at that event though.

Apfelkuchen, the need to rhyme in certain kinds of poetry can be a pain, but crone means old woman. So there are two problems: There is no need to put the word old in front of a word that already means old. Second, insulting a man by calling him a woman is itself insulting to all women.

Dpb, lighten up. Why feel the need to pick apart a limerick, because it disparages Prosser? Did you speak up when a few of the groupies here called. Bradley a slut, a whore? No, didn't think so. Those terms are more insulting to women than the word "crone". Hypocrisy once again amongst the groupies.